Shine v. Stein

Filing
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00316-FDW
KERRY ADAM SHINE, JR.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOSH STEIN,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon initial review of Petitioner Kerry Adam Shine,
Jr.’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed June 1, 2017. (Pet. 15,
Doc. No. 1.)
Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina. Federal law requires that a
petitioner seeking habeas review of his state conviction and/or sentence in federal district court
pay a $5.00 filing fee or be granted leave by the court to proceed without prepayment of fees and
costs. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. For those seeking indigent status, Rule 3(2) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires a prisoner’s habeas
petition be accompanied by “a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the affidavit
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer of
the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that the petitioner has in
any account in the institution.”
On June 12, 2017, the Clerk of Court mailed a notice of deficiency to Petitioner, alerting
him that he was required to pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an application to proceed without
prepayment of fees and affidavit of indigency. Petitioner was provided twenty-one (21) days to
1
comply (Doc. No. 2), which, as of the date of this Order, he has failed to do. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to refile it, along
with the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and affidavit of
indigency.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice; and
2) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to
issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a
denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000) (holding that when
relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the
correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
Signed: September 14, 2017
2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.